[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20220607164950.747053551@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:03:20 +0200
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Subject: [PATCH 5.15 535/667] bfq: Drop pointless unlock-lock pair
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
commit fc84e1f941b91221092da5b3102ec82da24c5673 upstream.
In bfq_insert_request() we unlock bfqd->lock only to call
trace_block_rq_insert() and then lock bfqd->lock again. This is really
pointless since tracing is disabled if we really care about performance
and even if the tracepoint is enabled, it is a quick call.
CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
Tested-by: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220401102752.8599-5-jack@suse.cz
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
---
block/bfq-iosched.c | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -6012,11 +6012,8 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct bl
return;
}
- spin_unlock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
-
trace_block_rq_insert(rq);
- spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq);
if (!bfqq || at_head) {
if (at_head)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists